You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
I think Chasseguet-Smirgel's concerns about political correctness are important. In the past few years, many of us at Emory Psychoanalytic Institute, have become sensitive to the complexity of discussing homosexuality “in a reasoned manner.” When a long-standing prejudice begins to topple, those who have been harmed are acutely sensitive to further belittlement or being “dissed.” We have seen this in recent years in the feminist movements as well as in the struggles of African Americans.
We held a Faculty Retreat three years ago on Homosexuality. It followed the announcement of his homosexuality by an esteemed colleague and former Director of our Institute. We have also had Atlanta Psychoanalytic Society speakers on the subject and have developed a course called “Love, Sex and Gender,” which I will refer to again later. Much of this activity has been set in motion by our colleague. I believe that we are still at the beginning of the process of tuning in on and sorting out our individual stances; and that sharing our thoughts fully will take time and courage.
Some of the words and phrases used in Chasseguet-Smirgel's quotation seem provocative. In my opinion, the concept of “normality” is vague and complex. For example, does it mean average or utopian? If psychoanalysis strives toward the attainability of an ideal normality, one may conclude that homosexuals have not resolved their negative oedipal conflicts. A vision of ideal normality leads to a similar conclusion about heterosexuals: all who defend against their bisexuality are “deficient” in their identifications. Clinically, I find the concepts of